Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16678
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLim, Ruth P-
dc.contributor.authorHornsey, Emma-
dc.contributor.authorRanatunga, Dinesh-
dc.contributor.authorHao, Huming-
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Julie-
dc.contributor.authorSpelman, Tim-
dc.contributor.authorChuen, Jason-
dc.contributor.authorGoodwin, Mark D-
dc.date2017-06-06-
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-21T01:19:01Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-21T01:19:01Z-
dc.date.issued2017-09-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Imaging 2017; 45: 51-57en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16678-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: To assess feasibility, image quality and measured venous caliber of non-contrast MRV (NC-MRV) of central and upper extremity veins, compared to contrast-enhanced MRV (CE-MRV) and ultrasound (US) in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 subjects underwent NC-MRV and CE-MRV at 1.5 T, with comparison to US. Two radiologists evaluated MRI for image quality (IQ) and venous caliber. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: NC-MRV is feasible, with inferior IQ but comparable venous caliber measurements CE-MRV (mean 7.9±4.58 mm vs. 7.83±4.62, p=0.13). Slightly larger upper limb caliber measurements were derived for NC-MRV and CE-MRV compared to US (NC-MRV 5.2±1.8 mm, CE-MRV 4.9±1.6 mm, US 4.5±1.8 mm, both p<0.001).en_US
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance venographyen_US
dc.subjectNon-contrasten_US
dc.subjectRenal failureen_US
dc.subjectUltrasounden_US
dc.subjectVenous mappingen_US
dc.titleUpper extremity non-contrast magnetic resonance venography (MRV) compared to contrast enhanced MRV and ultrasounden_US
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleClinical Imagingen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Radiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Radiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28601736en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.05.020en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0955-5446-
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.austinComparative Study-
dc.type.austinEvaluation Studies-
local.name.researcherChuen, Jason
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptRadiology-
crisitem.author.deptRadiology-
crisitem.author.deptRadiology-
crisitem.author.deptRadiology-
crisitem.author.deptVascular Surgery-
crisitem.author.dept3D Medical Printing Laboratory-
crisitem.author.deptRadiology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

44
checked on Oct 4, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.